https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18596 Revisional interference under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 requires disclosed material and a real opportunity for the assessee to rebut the proposed revision. The Commissioner could not disturb deductions for manager's residence upkeep, plucking charges, and maintenance of lines, latrines and motor vehicles on a vague assertion of excess allowance, especially where the vouchers, accounts and supporting records were not challenged. A notice confined to the first appellate order, without a clear proposal to revise the original assessment, was also insufficient. The revisional action was therefore unsustainable for want of proper jurisdictional basis. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:32:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18596 Revisional interference under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 requires disclosed material and a real opportunity for the assessee to rebut the proposed revision. The Commissioner could not disturb deductions for manager's residence upkeep, plucking charges, and maintenance of lines, latrines and motor vehicles on a vague assertion of excess allowance, especially where the vouchers, accounts and supporting records were not challenged. A notice confined to the first appellate order, without a clear proposal to revise the original assessment, was also insufficient. The revisional action was therefore unsustainable for want of proper jurisdictional basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18596